Legitimate complaints about the General forum

[Daistallia 2104]

Why does there need to be a time limit on non-current-events, non-recurring-topic threads at all?

Because they add nothing to conversations that have already finished, as has already been explained and demonstrated.

...given that the user base has dropped as compared to what it was on jolt...

Hmmm... I was under the opposite impression, actually - that the user base has increased since leaving those people.

[The Norwegian Blue]

I just want to note that I appreciate and approve of the changes that have been made so far. It's really nice to see player feedback taken seriously.

[Vonners]

Why does there need to be a time limit on non-current-events, non-recurring-topic threads at all?

Because they add nothing to conversations that have already finished, as has already been explained and demonstrated.

...given that the user base has dropped as compared to what it was on jolt...

Hmmm... I was under the opposite impression, actually - that the user base has increased since leaving those people.

Maybe its just me...it just feels that the forum moves more slowly than it did on jolt...of course perceptions and realities are oft quite different...

[Bluth Corporation]

Why does there need to be a time limit on non-current-events, non-recurring-topic threads at all?

Because they add nothing to conversations that have already finished, as has already been explained and demonstrated.

You pointed to examples of posts that were added to long-inactive threads that in fact did not add anything of value. Others have pointed to examples of posts that did.

Why not sanction the valueless posts and leave it open for those who can add comments of value? Why have you (and others) ignored this proposition every time I have brought it up, and continue to act as if I have said nothing concerning this issue?

[Daistallia 2104]

Others have pointed to examples of posts that did.

The only examples that have been pointed to as far as I am aware were these: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=82588&p=4110270#p4110270

Neither you nor the poster have explained how these added to the conversation to justify bringing it up again.

Why not sanction the valueless posts and leave it open for those who can add comments of value?

Why leave threads open for nonsense and spam long after the conversation has finished?

Why have you (and others) ignored this proposition every time I have brought it up, and continue to act as if I have said nothing concerning this issue?

I haven't ignored your posts. When requested, you've utterly failed to provide support for your position other than to suggest that there is a hypothetical possibility that some academic argument might require months to research or to point to posts that added nothing to the conversation at hand. When this was pointed out, you argued that the posts in question weren't the ones you were speaking of.

Anywho, as this appears to be at an end, I suggest we both leave off.

Maybe its just me...it just feels that the forum moves more slowly than it did on jolt...of course perceptions and realities are oft quite different...

You went walk about before the slump really hit Jolt, IIRC. The move to the new forum brought more into it, as I understand.

[Bluth Corporation]

Others have pointed to examples of posts that did.

The only examples that have been pointed to as far as I am aware were these: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=82588&p=4110270#p4110270

Neither you nor the poster have explained how these added to the conversation to justify bringing it up again.

You mean like http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=1338876#p1338876? Seems to me like a perfect example of a substantial, original insight added to an inactive discussion.

Why not sanction the valueless posts and leave it open for those who can add comments of value?

Why leave threads open for nonsense and spam long after the conversation has finished?

They're not "open for nonsense and spam," any more than currently-active threads are. They're open for intelligent, constructive additions to the discussion.

There's no meaningful difference between active and inactive threads here: sanction unconstructive posts, and leave people free to make constructive posts.

I haven't ignored your posts. When requested, you've utterly failed to provide support for your position other than to suggest that there is a hypothetical possibility that some academic argument might require months to research

Not hypothetical; I provided a couple of examples of exactly those kinds of topics.

or to point to posts that added nothing to the conversation at hand. When this was pointed out, you argued that the posts in question weren't the ones you were speaking of.

I pointed at nothing. Wiztopia pointed at threads that contained both spammy posts and substantial posts. Given that his purpose was to show examples of worthwhile posts that were added long after a thread had gone inactive, a reasonable person would realize that the spammy posts that happened to be on the same page probably weren't the ones he was pointing out as examples of good posts.

Look, no one's denying that unconstructive posts are just as likely to get made to inactive threads as are constructive posts. But that happens to active threads as well. There's no reason they can't just be treated on inactive threads the same way they are on active threads.

[Vonners]

You went walk about before the slump really hit Jolt, IIRC. The move to the new forum brought more into it, as I understand.

yeah...around the middle of 07 I think? work work work...always gets in the way...